---

Terrorism Bill

My Lords, I suspect that all of us are pretty familiar with the arguments around this issue of where the balance ought to lie between individual rights to liberty and the collective rights to security. However, I am bound to say that, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, I do not think that the situation in this country in 2006 is remotely like South Africa under apartheid. There is no white minority suppressing a black majority. Everybody over the age of 18 who is not in prison has a vote. We are all equal under the law. We have equal rights legislation, which protects us in respect of gender and race, and we now have religious protection for all. Our police are controlled by civil authorities who are elected by all the people of this country. Whichever party is in government, whether it is this side of the House or that side—or even the other side of the House—we live in a good and decent country. To draw the analogy with South Africa is a great shame. Like many others, I have enormous sympathy with those who support the argument for 28 days. None of us wants anyone languishing in custody who should not be there. All of us recognise the enormously powerful arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Condon, when we discussed this in Committee, about the risks of fracturing our society if we allow a situation to develop that can adversely affect a particular group of our citizens. I am sure that each of us has struggled with what we believe is right. When I first became a Minister in the Foreign Office I remember the principles that guided the decisions that all Ministers have to take when dealing with matters that impinge on international affairs. The truth is that the first duty of any state is the security of its citizens. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said that it was an argument about security of the state. Not for me. It is an argument about the security of people—not the security of state institutions, but the security of real people. Security is not the only duty. The promotion of democracy, human rights and the rule of law are all vital—I use that word advisedly. They are vital, but governments, democracy, human rights and the rule of law do not flourish without proper security. Security is the first prerequisite, without which all those other vital components do not take root, and certainly do not flourish. As the noble Baroness, Lady Park, remarked, I spoke in Committee about my experiences in dealing with these issues as a Minister, and about dealing with other jurisdictions, which are sometimes very different from our own, and when time to argue cases over individuals is vital. I shall not run though those arguments now, but they are compelling. It takes a great deal of time, even when dealing with a friendly jurisdiction, let alone one that is a little less friendly than it might be. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Berwick, said that it was easy to paint the picture of 7/7, but that it was less easy to picture the misery of those who are held without charge for 60 days. I found that equivalence entirely misplaced. A lost life is a life lost for ever. Sixty lost days are, indeed, dreadful when they are lost unfairly. But it is 60 days, not 60 years. Furthermore, the 60 days are reviewed every seven days, unlike 60 years of a lost life which will never be reviewed at all. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said that there is no other country that uses this period of detention. I am sure that he is right. As I understand it, however, there are other jurisdictions where individuals are charged with minor offences and held for lengthy periods while the authorities draw together the evidence for the substantive charges of terrorism that follow. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord really does believe that somebody languishing unfairly for 60 days with a review every seven days is treated so much worse than somebody held on a minor charge that everybody recognises is an artificial charge while the substantive charges are drawn together. The noble and learned Lord went on to ask why ACPO did not make these points in 2003. I cannot answer that because I do not speak for ACPO. But I know that in the past two and a half years our experience of dealing with terrorism has developed enormously. We have recognised the problems of dealing with foreign jurisdictions that I indicated when we last discussed this and we recognise those far more clearly. My practical experience was in the years 2003 to 2005. My position is not—as the noble and learned Lord indicated that he thought ACPO’s position was—a reaction to 7/7, because my ministerial experience ceased before that date. I do not believe that if the terrorists who attacked this country on 7/7 had had the opportunity to kill hundreds or thousands they would not have taken it; they certainly would. Our first duty here, as legislators, is to the innocent people of all races and all religions. Nobody has spoken about their human rights and their right to life. That right has to take precedence here. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, was quite right when he used the words ““fundamental rights””. The right to life is the most fundamental of all. I believe that our first duty is to keep those people safe. It is not to take risks with their safety. We have a better chance of doing that by supporting the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Sewell than we do by sticking with 28 days.